get_field_value

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and specifies supported field types, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, response format, or whether it requires specific permissions. The description provides basic functional context but misses critical operational details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured in a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. While concise, it could potentially benefit from slightly more detail given the complete lack of parameter documentation and behavioral context in annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 3 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does at a high level but fails to provide necessary context about parameter meanings, expected inputs, return values, or operational constraints that would enable effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage for 3 required parameters, the description provides no information about what projectId, itemId, or fieldId represent, their expected formats, or how to obtain them. The description mentions 'GitHub project item' and 'field types' but doesn't connect these concepts to the specific parameters, leaving significant semantic gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get a field value') and resource ('for a GitHub project item'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it supports reading all field types. This provides precise differentiation from tools like 'set_field_value' (write operation) and 'list_project_fields' (list operation).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by specifying it reads field values for project items, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project' or 'get_issue'. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, error conditions, or when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.